Omega PO GMT vs Tudor GMT

[swils8610]

Omega for me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[maxymax]

Omega

[Laszlo]

PO no doubt. I’d get the Tudor second. Both great watches but the PO is on a completely different level.

[jvb.nc]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Watch dimensions and functions for reference:

Omega seamaster PO GMT BW
-17.2mm thick
-49mm lug to lug
-43.5mm case diameter
-clasp slide adjustment
-diver’s extension
-display caseback
-true GMT
-ceramic bezel insert
-HEV

Tudor BB GMT RB
-14.5mm thick
-50.2mm lug to lug
-41mm case diameter
-true GMT
-aluminum bezel insert

(info from watchbox reviews, Tim Mosso)

I like the Omega’s monochromatic color scheme and superior bracelet adjustability. On the other hand, I prefer the matte dial of the Tudor, the aesthetics of the bracelet and clasp, and overall look of the Watch. Both would serve well in their intent as travel/dive watches.

I’ll go with the Tudor, it’s more pleasing to the eye and something that would fit my overall style.


AOW

oddly though, the BB GMT wears WAY larger than these dimensions suggest; the PO is probably better at 42mm but even with the thickness (which i feel is rather de rigeur for Omega these days) i find the PO will wear smaller in the metal.

my $0.02 obviously and YMMV, but i definitely feel like the BB wears a lot bigger than just the paper would suggest.

[gmtln]

Personally not a fan of either. But if I had to choose, it would be the Tudor, that PO is way too thick.
I had a PO8500 and the thickness was too much for me.

[Seaswirl]

Had a 42mm PO, but it was just too thick. I’d go with the Tudor here.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by pepsiretail

I tried on the Tudor and I think unwearable is a little strong.

The PO is unwearable you cheeky guy. The tudor is chamfered and fits anyone who can wear a 40mm

[time_and_cars]

Originally Posted by Jerrocop

Which one would you pick? Without consider of price or short term resale value is Omega the better watch?

Omega all the way... I have the Omega PO GTM good planet edition 43.5mm I love it

[Tiptac]

Objectively, Planet Ocean. But I prefer the look of the Tudor.

[Jmango]

I own that PO and couldn't be happier with it. 7.75" wrist and it wears comfortably for sure. I always look down when that one is up in the wear rotation and "re-notice" it on my wrist and it gives me that giddy feeling of wearing a great watch all over again...

Fantastic watch and provided you can wear it on your wrist, there really is no question it is a superior offering. Get it, you won't look back.

[samson66]

Isn't that Omega like a $8K watch? Hard tom compare the two directly. I think you would find down the road the GMT gets more wrist time

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Beauregard

The Omega is so much more watch for the money, I just wish they weren't a thick.

Can't agree with this statement. At ~$3,500 I don't think there is another Swiss watch on the market that gives you more dollar-for-dollar than the Tudor GMT. The Tudor is an absolute bargain at its price point. I have the GMT and an Omega Moonwatch and I can tell you the GMT gets way more wrist time

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[Jerrocop]

Originally Posted by samson66

Isn't that Omega like a $8K watch? Hard tom compare the two directly. I think you would find down the road the GMT gets more wrist time

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

What’s a better comparison? Rolex GMT? Milgauss? Sea Master?

[Explorer2polar]

Having owned both an Omega P.O. and the Tudor GMT,

It would be the Omega PO series for me, not necessarily the GMT version.

IMO the Tudor needs to go on a diet, the case feels larger than the omega on your wrist and spoils what should be a good watch, hence my decision to part with mine one week after purchase.

[samson66]

Originally Posted by Jerrocop

What’s a better comparison? Rolex GMT? Milgauss? Sea Master?

I would say comparing a Planet Ocean to Submariner might be closer. Tudor is at a much different price point. Not sure a Tudor is meant to compete directly with $8-10K watches. That is Rolex's market.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by samson66

I would say comparing a Planet Ocean to Submariner might be closer. Tudor is at a much different price point. Not sure a Tudor is meant to compete directly with $8-10K watches. That is Rolex's market.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk

You are right. The PO and Sub are in the same league of watches. Both have their own personalities and both are a great choice.

[slus]

I'll have to go PO on this one. Tudor GMT is nice, but it comes off as an odd combo of new and retro for me

[Likestheshiny]

The PO is unwearable you cheeky guy. The tudor is chamfered and fits anyone who can wear a 40mm

Still looks like a brick on my wrist, and I wouldn't wear it given the choice of something smaller. The chamfering can only do so much to hide the fundamental fact that it's a very thick watch.

There's a reason the 58 is so popular, after all.

[DPE]

Tudor GMT is my vote. The design and price are great value.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by jvb.nc

oddly though, the BB GMT wears WAY larger than these dimensions suggest; the PO is probably better at 42mm but even with the thickness (which i feel is rather de rigeur for Omega these days) i find the PO will wear smaller in the metal.



my $0.02 obviously and YMMV, but i definitely feel like the BB wears a lot bigger than just the paper would suggest.

Fair assessment. I’ll attribute peoples perception of the PO’s better wearability to smaller lug to lug length and design.
I wear dive computers so case thickness (height) has never bothered me with dive watches.


AOW